From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6529 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2015 20:28:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 6514 invoked by uid 89); 23 Jan 2015 20:28:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mtaout22.012.net.il Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 20:28:43 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NIN00J00CAIEQ00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 22:28:40 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NIN00JUJCVRF510@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 22:28:40 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 01:55:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3 v2] Implement completion limiting In-reply-to: To: Doug Evans Cc: gbenson@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83wq4ds0lh.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1417094168-25868-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <1417094168-25868-4-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> <20141210122233.GA7299@blade.nx> <21671.20308.262958.475080@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> <20150107084255.GA17867@blade.nx> <21680.36641.315766.209208@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> <83a91r6lbd.fsf@gnu.org> <20150115153930.GA14900@blade.nx> <83h9vhu7k8.fsf@gnu.org> <83zj99sbgk.fsf@gnu.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg00662.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 08:56:59 -0800 > From: Doug Evans > Cc: Gary Benson , > "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" > > How often will there be exactly N? About the same frequency as there will be exactly N-1, I guess. > And in that particular and massively rare case, > once gdb has found N, how much extra work will > be performed searching the entire executable > and all its shared libraries just to verify there are > in fact no more completions? > [because that's what has to happen if > we're to avoid printing *any* message] > > The user waits 5 minutes for the entire list and > gets her 200 completions, and wonders > why it took so long. Then she digs a bit > deeper and finds out they were found > in the first 5 seconds. Ugh. 200 is just a random number. It's not magic in any way. So you could have 199 completions found in the first 5 sec, followed by 5 minutes of waiting for the 200th which is never found. Ugh. There's no way around this issue. > I don't see the benefit of going to the trouble > of avoiding printing any message when there are > exactly N completions. That's fine, but then the option's name and its documentation should be changed to reflect this. They currently support what I thought user will get, not what you describe above.